Trayvon Martin Updates

[Content Note: Violence; racism; victim-blaming.]

1. Joy-Ann Reid at TheGrio: Miami-Dade fire captain on Zimmerman charges: Blame 'shitbag' parents of 'our urban youth'.

The Miami-Dade Fire-Rescue Department is investigating a Facebook post by one of its captains... The entry was posted on the personal Facebook page of Miami-Dade fire captain Brian Beckmann. The Facebook page bears the same profile picture as the entry, which appears to have been deleted, but which was captured in a screengrab sent to theGrio.

The page's profile entry lists Metro-Dade Firefighters Local 1403.

The entry appears to have been created on Wednesday, the night State Attorney Angela Corey announced she would file second degree murder charges against George Zimmerman over Martin's shooting death.

"Listening to Prosecutor Corey blow herself and her staff for five minutes before pre-passing judgment on George Zimmerman," it read.

"The state seeks reelection again, truth aside. I and my coworkers could rewrite the book on whether our urban youths are victims of racist profiling or products of their failed, shitbag, ignorant, pathetic, welfare dependent excuses for parents, but like Mrs. Corey, we speak only the truth. They're just misunderstood little church going angels and the ghetto hoodie look doesn't have anything to do with why people wonder if they're about to get jacked by a thug."

Beckmann responded to questions about the page in a Facebook message, saying, "I am a private citizen and have the same right to freely express an opinion on any subject that anyone else does."
Yep, that's true—although most private citizens are not paid by the state to save lives, so whether they engage in victim-blaming and the public auditing of which people are deserving of safety isn't really relevant. It is, however, relevant to a community when someone tasked with community rescue and support expresses views that suggests he considers some lives more valuable than others.

2. Steven Yaccino in the New York Times: After Florida Shooting, NRA Crowd Sticks to What It Knows.
Inside the seven-acre showroom at the National Rifle Association's annual convention [in St. Louis] during the weekend, firearm enthusiasts filtered in and out of the sea of booths displaying handguns and the holsters designed to hide them.

Eager to explain the benefits of carrying a concealed weapon, hikers discussed how they feared bandits more than bears on the trail. Aging men rattled off hypothetical situations requiring self-defense; the details varied, but all involved some version of a younger, more muscular aggressor.

Yet with the gun lobby gathering just days after George Zimmerman was arrested in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teenager in Florida, there was a new potency to such contingencies as many gun owners wait for more evidence about the killing to emerge.

"People here are definitely thinking and talking about it," said Terrence Mayfield, 61, who has a permit to carry a concealed firearm in Florida. "This whole thing rests on who threw the first punch. Either the gun saved Zimmerman's life or we had a cowboy, someone who thought because he had a gun things could escalate."
There's a lot more dangerous paranoia at the link, if you're interested.

I am deeply contemptuous of the idea that there only two possible options—A. Zimmerman's a cowboy; or B. Zimmerman's gun saved his life—which elides the possibility that even if Zimmerman was attacked (and I don't believe that he was), shooting his attacker was an overreaction.

These Stand Your Ground laws are advocated by people who believe that other people want to kill them or do them serious bodily harm, and that it's reasonable to kill a person who intends to do either. The deeply pessimistic view of (certain parts of) humankind is problematic enough on its own, but if you probe these arguments for what's actually an acceptable use of preemptive self-defense, it becomes clear pretty quickly that Stand Your Ground supporters are, exactly as I've described, fearful, privileged people whose bigotry makes them extremely dangerous to marginalized people—because none of them would support the preemptive shooting of police officers by young black men, despite the many, many, many, many, many, many reasons they have to believe their safety or very lives could be in danger, and none of them would support 1 in every 6 women shooting the men who rape them, or 1 in every 4 women shooting the male partner who subjects them to domestic abuse, etc.

Endemic violence against oppressed people is just The Way Things Are.

And, of course, oppressed people who try to or do defend themselves against privileged people often end up being arrested and jailed themselves, even in Stand Your Ground states.

Stand Your Ground laws aren't for those of us with identities and lives that mark us for greater risk of violence. We are just meant to survive. (And so most of us do, without ever having to kill anyone with a gun to do it.) Stand Your Ground laws aren't for survivors; they're for the people who create survivors, who fear being treated like they treat everyone else.

Open Wide...

Game of Thrones, Explained

[Content Note: Rape culture; objectification; video may not be safe for work.]

Sincere feminist ally Andy Samberg, whose digital shorts for Saturday Night Live are often the best (and frequently the only good thing about) the show, depending on the week, and have often incisively lambasted parts of "dude culture" and rape culture, knocked it out of the park again this weekend with this short skewering Game of Thrones (or, as I like to call it, Game of Boners).

[Flash 10 is required to watch video]

Video Description: A parody of HBO's "First Look" behind-the-scenes features, in which cast and crew of their shows are interviewed about the production, story, characters, etc. A white male cast member dressed as Kit Harrington, who plays "Jon Snow," says the show is "an epic story of good versus evil." A white female cast member dressed as an actress named Therese Sullivan, who is identified as playing a character called "Brothel Mistress," says "the characters are all so complex." We are then introduced to the show's two key consultants: Author George R. R. Martin, who explains he's there "to ensure the show honors the spirit" of the books, and "Adam Friedberg, a thirteen-year-old boy," played by Andy Samberg, who says, "I make sure there are lots of boobs in the show!"

Kit Harrington says Adam Friedberg is a genius, as Friedberg shows off his sketch for a scene, which is a stick figure with giant boobs. Cut to Friedberg explaining how he improved a scene of a dude talking to himself by suggesting they add "two naked ladies just going to town on each other" in the background. (Actual show clip.)

George R. R. Martin says Friedberg is a visionary, as Friedberg reviews a cut and complains, "I can't see any butts in this!"

Friedberg also takes lots of bathroom breaks.

Friedberg (over actual show clips): "Last week was one of my most inspired scenes: I was like, in that corner, can we get two people doing it doggy style, and then a dude peeping at that being all, 'Looks good to me!', and then we pan down, and he's got a naked lady working on his wang, and then another dude peeping on that, and he's like, 'Tell me more!' and all of that appeared on television right after Rango. It's HBO!"

[Video via Sean.]

Open Wide...

Daily Dose of Cute

Dudley the Greyhound lies on the sofa with one of his front paws bandaged and wrapped in plastic

Dudley, foot-mangler extraordinaire, lies on the sofa showing off the fine work of Melissa's At-Home Animal Clinic: Antibiotic cream, a sterile pad, and a taped-on sandwich baggie to keep it all clean and dry. True Fact: I am the MacGyver of canine podiatry.

Dudley is such a superklutz, but he is also such a good boy: He knows I'm trying to make him feel better, and just lets me clean and dress his hurty feets without a complaint, twice every day. And, once I'm finished makeshifting together some bandage-like contraption to protect the latest in his never-ending string of foot wounds, he never messes with the bandaging. He just limps about goofily, with a big lolly-tongued grin: "Thanks for fixing my foot, Two-Legs!"

And then he tears out into the backyard after Zelly like his foot wasn't bleeding like a mofo two seconds earlier.

Zelly the Black and Tan Mutt sits on the living room floor with a rope toy, grinning
"I try to take it easy, but it's so fun to RUN!!!"

Open Wide...

I Write Letters

[Content note: Anti-gay bias, Christian supremacy, and descriptions of violence against LGBT*QI people]

To: The Right Reverend and Right Honourable The Lord Carey of Clifton PC (formerly The Most Reverend and Right Honourable Dr George Carey, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1991-2002)

From: Dr Aphra Behn, Associate Professor of Historical Ladybusiness

Dear Lord Carey,

Whew! That was quite a typing-handful, that title of yours. Living in the United States, I'm not usually concerned about such things, but I wanted to be sure to get it right for you. After all, I understand that you have been feeling a bit low about the alleged persecution of Christians in the United Kingdom these days, and I don't want to get started off on the wrong foot.

Because I am about to ask a fairly awkward question, and I hope you'll take it in the right spirit:

In a country where you hold such a very impressive title, served as Primate of the still-official state church, where Bishops still sit in the House of Lords, where the Monarch is still the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and where the official calendar of holidays still enshrines Christianity's holy days as holidays...

...how ON EARTH do you come to the conclusion that Christians are being "driven underground"?

Then there is your claim that "[i]t is now Christians who are persecuted; often sought out and framed by homosexual activists."

Um.

So are you alleging that LGBT*QI people are no longer persecuted, but it’s actually Christians unjustly “framed” by some conspiracy, receiving the kind of persecution gays have endured?

Okay, Lord Player.

The cases mentioned in the article include someone who refuses to do her job in conducting a same-sex civil partnership ceremony (not a marriage, I note, let alone a Church wedding), and a therapist who refused to give counseling to gay people, because, I guess counseling ethics go out the door with gay people. The complainants apparently lost their jobs because they refused to do them. (There are also cases related to wearing religious symbols on the job, but since those don’t seem to be related to your claims of “homosexual activists,” I won’t address them here.)

For comparison, let’s consider the past and present state of gender and sexual minorities in the U.K. and the Commonwealth.

For centuries, sodomy was a capital offence in English law (albeit a rarely prosecuted one), a sentence "mercifully" changed to life imprisonment in 1861. Perhaps you have forgotten that in more "liberal" times, Oscar Wilde was only the most famous of those who served hard labour for the "gross indecency" of same-sex relations. Or that Alan Turing, whose work on Enigma proved crucial to Allied success in the Second World War, was only one of the many men to be given a choice between chemical castration or imprisonment upon conviction for the same crime. He was also only one of many to take his own life as a result of such state-sponsored anti-gay violence. On January 26, 2011, Ugandan activist David Kato was found brutally beaten to death, murdered in what was almost certainly a response to his decision to fight back against a newspaper's "war against gays." He is only one of many who today face death thanks to anti-gay legislation and prejudice around the world.

Those are a few examples of persecution against queer people, my Lord. I could give many others, but perhaps you can see how outlandish is your claim that Christians are somehow being persecuted simply because the law does not precisely coincide with all aspects of your interpretation of Christian belief, nor does it fully protect those who refuse to do their jobs because of said beliefs.

It is not persecution when your bigotry is labeled what it is, and when the law no longer fully supports it. That is a loss of privilege. While I understand that a loss of privilege still feels like a loss, labeling it persecution does no credit to you or your cause.

More importantly, your words have consequences for oppressed people. With your invocation of frankly fictional “gay activist” conspiracies, you undermine attempts to win human dignity for LGBT*QI people around the world. Those looking for evidence of gay perversion and subversion, that trans*persons are enemies of the state, that lesbians must be hunted, that queers must be re-educated and controlled--they have found support and encouragement in your words. These are words that will hurt real people. Some of those people are your brothers and sisters in Christ. All are your siblings in common humanity. They will face genuine persecution, for the simple reason that the statements of current and former Archbishops of Canterbury are influential in this world.

Because, seriously. Living in Lambeth Palace? It ain't exactly hiding in the catacombs.

Sincerely,

Aphra

Open Wide...

Monday Blogaround

This blogaround brought to you by blue tortilla chips.

Recommended Reading:

Sara: The Real War on Moms Has a Mortality Rate

Andy: LGBTQI Activists Blast 'Shallow, Unpersuasive' White House Punt on Non-Discrimination Order

Pam: Philanthropist Todd Stiefel Launches $100,000 Matching Donation Campaign to Defeat Amendment One

Lucy: How 25 National Magazine Award Nominations Went to 25 Male Writers

Fannie: Weightlifting While Female

Atrios has another strong contender in the Wanker of the Decade contest: Deeky's favorite person on the planet, Andrew Sullivan.

And finally: Helen has the video, as well as a note of praise and a note of criticism for, Melissa Harris-Perry's coverage of trans issues on her show this weekend.

Leave your links and recommendations in comments...

Open Wide...

Quote of the Day

"What we want is women to be able to make their own choices [...] We want women to make their own choices in healthcare. [...] Women don't need anyone to tell them what to do on health care. We want women to have their own choices, their own money, that way they can make their own choices for the future of their own bodies."—Extreme anti-choice Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann on Meet the Press this weekend, arguing against "Obamacare" without a trace of fucking irony.

At Think Progress, Rebecca notes:

Bachmann doesn't believe a women's right to choose applies in all cases, though, promising on the presidential campaign trail that in addition to supporting an abortion ban, she wouldn't allow exceptions for rape or for the woman's health."

On Meet The Press, Bachmann also claimed that "every aspect of women's lives would be better" under likely Republican nominee Mitt Romney than under President Barack Obama. However, Romney has already promised to repeal the gains women make under Obamacare, which prohibits health care providers from charging higher rates to women.
Whooooooooops!

Open Wide...

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime



Bee Gees: "How Deep Is Your Love"

Open Wide...

Primarily Garbage

image of Mitt Romney at a campaign event, smiling broadly, to which I have added a dialogue bubble reading: 'Oh, you're a plumber. What on EARTH is that?'
[/Izzard]

If there's ONE THING you need to know about Republican candidate and presumptive 2012 nominee Mitt Romney, it's that he's definitely in touch with the concerns, lives, and needs of the Common Man.

(Common Women, please report your issues to Ann Romney, who will filter through them, decide what you need, and pass that shit on to Mitt.)

In today's news about what a terrific candidate Mitt Romney is...

Sal Gentile at Up With Chris Hayes—Romney: Welfare Parents 'Need to Go to Work': "In a speech to the National Rifle Association on Friday, [Romney said], 'I happen to believe that all moms are working moms.' But video from earlier this year, aired today on Up w/ Chris Hayes, shows Romney campaigning on the proposition that meaningful welfare reform should require parents with children to get out of the home and into the workforce." Ha ha what Mitt Romney means is that all privileged straight white married stay-at-home moms are working moms doing the hardest job there is on the planet, but poor moms are welfare queens who need to GET A REAL JOB.

Garrett Haake at MSNBC—Romney Offers Policy Details at Closed-Door Fundraiser: "Romney went into a level of detail not usually seen by the public in the speech, which was overheard by reporters on a sidewalk below. 'I'm going to take a lot of departments in Washington, and agencies, and combine them. Some eliminate, but I'm probably not going to lay out just exactly which ones are going to go. Things like Housing and Urban Development, which my dad was head of, that might not be around later. ... The Department of Education: I will either consolidate with another agency, or perhaps make it a heck of a lot smaller. ... But I'm not going to actually go through these one by one. What I can tell you is, we've got far too many bureaucrats. I will send a lot of what happens in Washington back to the states.'" SO GOOD LUCK, RED STATES! Vote for Mitt Romney, who will take away your federal spending so your standard of services and care will be totally contingent on state revenue even though whooooooooops you tend to have the highest levels of unemployment, underemployment, and poverty! Stock up on bootstraps now!

Ben Smith at BuzzFeed—Romney Sells Inauguration Access, Nine Months Early: "Former Governor Mitt Romney is already offering top donors access to a special 'Presidential Inaugural retreat,' planned on the assumption that he will be elected president this November. The offer, in a fundraising email circulated by a top Georgia supporter to fellow Republicans and obtained by BuzzFeed, is one of several goodies offered to those who contribute more than $50,000 to the joint fundraising committee known as "Romney Victory"... Those donors will be named 'Founding Members' of Romney Victory and invited to a California retreat with Romney and offered 'yet to be determined access at the Republican National Convention in Tampa in August.' They will also 'have preferred status at the first Presidential Inaugural retreat,' the email says." Ooh SIGN ME UP lulz! And then use my money to buy the licensing rights to use "High Hopes" in a campaign advert!

Everyone knows a Mitt can't move a sitting president. But he's got HIGH HOPES! He's got HIGH HOPES! He's got high apple pie, car elevator to the sky hopes!

Speaking of Mitt Romney losing to President Barack Obama: "President Barack Obama's re-election campaign announced Monday that they raised $53 million in March, up about $8 million from the month before. ... The campaign of all but certain Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has not yet released their March fundraising figures. The former Massachusetts governor raised $12 million in February, with $7.3 million cash on hand."

HIGH HOPES!

Talk about these things! Or don't. Whatever makes you happy. Life is short.

Open Wide...

On Why I Left the Academy

At the end of last year, I left my job in higher education to work for a private IT firm. I'm not going to take this opportunity to go all Goldman Sachs guy on you, but I would like to say a few things about what the academy is like now that all our leaders have a boner for neoliberalism.

I'm hardly the first person to notice that college isn't all it's cracked up to be. There's plenty more reading material available for those of you who are interested. Thus, I'm not going to go into every nook-and-cranny of my three-plus-years with the State of New York. However, here are some choice observations:

I spend far less time now worrying about the bottom line than I did when I was an assistant professor. That's not because I work for a company run by a unicorn. My current employer most definitely runs a business.

The president of my former college had two main goals for the school. First, he wanted us to increase our enrollment by at least five percent a year. Second, he wanted us to maintain our position as a leader in student satisfaction.

I'm not digging up dirt here. These goals were public.

While these goals might sound laudable to the casual observer, I think they merit a bit more discussion.

First, why would an administrator want more students their college? I suspect part of it has to do with some college administrators' Messianic attitudes towards the masses. If a college with 300 students does a certain amount of good, doesn't it follow that society derives a hundred times as much benefit from a college of 30,000?

Of course, there's also the capitalists' hang-up about growth. Grow or be outcompeted, maximize efficiency to thrive. It's one thing (which I'm not addressing here) to apply that type of reasoning to a business, yet quite another to built a university upon it. Of course, that's the shitty thing about neoliberalism. It's not famed for its nuance.

Second, why the cutthroat concern about students' happiness? I think the outward reasoning is that students are colleges' customers, and therefore the source of institutions' continued mandates. Never mind that society has never entirely agreed as to who college's customers are (to the extent that western society has settled on this, students have never been the answer). I've never seen a clear definition of what colleges are providing (or to whom), but I dare say college degrees have never merely been financial investments bought by the upwardly mobile.

From my perspective, college as an investment in one's security is not unlike playing the markets for the same purpose-- the nature of the results are not merely a function of skill and effort.

What did all of this mean for me as a faculty member? It meant that I was judged on how well I helped the school recruit students, and how many of my students stuck around.

When I tell outsiders that, they frequently assume that I was working for a for-profit college. For-profit colleges are public schools without the pretense. (And yes, they are publicly funded. Follow the money.)

Recruitment and retention are huge in higher education. There are regular, high-profile conferences on it. Everyone knows it's cheaper to retain a student then recruit a new one. The trick is finding the right student, and then recruiting as many of them as necessary.

In my school's case, there was a heavy emphasis on veterans. They served our country, and in the process they earned money to give to the school of their choice. We did what it took to corner that market.

The driver of all this is money. In particular, state-funded schools have seen their funding cut precipitously. In lieu of public support, there are a handful of ways for schools to fund themselves. Research grants are lucrative, as are patentable discoveries. Tuition, be it from students, their creditors, or their benefactors, is increasingly important these days, particularly in the absence of patentable research.

As a faculty member, the result of all of this was demoralizing. Like a lot of junior faculty at teaching institutions (especially the ladyscience ones! :ahem:), I felt caught in a no-win situation. A tiny faculty for an ever-expanding student body meant that I was responsible for teaching and advising many, many students. Of course, not only did I not have the resources to teach effectively (for instance, developmental courses aren't covered by financial aid, thus my college didn't offer them), but I also had a massive non-academic workload. I felt that I was largely judged on the basis of my students' success (and happiness), while folks more powerful than me had already set up most of them for failure. My job was to pass the students along the line when I could, and to be a sympathetic figure when I couldn't.

After three and a half long years, I left. I got to the point where I couldn't afford the co-payments. Now I find myself working reasonable hours for good pay at a job I could have done without an advanced degree. That's the thing about neoliberalism-- it leaves no room for idealism, let alone a slight concern about the common good. When governance is business, the civil service is neither, nor is higher education.

Open Wide...

Today in Your Feminist Backlash

This is Newsweek's actual fucking cover this week:

image of a very thin white young woman from the chest up, who is naked, except for a black silk blindfold; she is wearing bright red lipstick with her lips slightly parted, and her head is tilted back as if in ecstasy; the text for the cover story reads: 'THE FANTASY LIFE OF WORKING WOMEN: Why surrender is a feminist dream.'
[Click to embiggen.]

The article can be read here, and contains such gems as:
It is intriguing that huge numbers of women are eagerly consuming myriad and disparate fantasies of submission at a moment when women are ascendant in the workplace, when they make up almost 60 percent of college students, when they are close to surpassing men as breadwinners, with four in 10 working women now outearning their husbands, when the majority of women under 30 are having and supporting children on their own, a moment when—in hard economic terms—women are less dependent or subjugated than before.
Yes, "intriguing." Possibly even more "intriguing" is the description of this article on Newsweek's Tumblr:
In an age where women are dominating—in the workplace, at school, at home—why are they seeking to be dominated in their love lives? Recent media portrayals have shown that a rising number of modern women fantasize about being overpowered, while studies are turning out statistics that bewilder feminists. New shows like HBO's Girls and books like Fifty Shades of Grey are showcasing the often hidden desire for powerlessness. But why? Katie Roiphe examines the submissive yet empowered female in Newsweek. "It is perhaps inconvenient for feminism that the erotic imagination does not submit to politics, or even changing demographics," she writes.
So, basically, Newsweek has allowed a writer to invent the claim out of whole cloth that US women are "dominating" in public and at home—despite 16% female representation in Congress and 15% representation among corporate CEOs, and despite the fact that study after study finds male-partnered women still doing the majority of housework and childcare, even if both partners are working full-time—and pair that specious contention with the popularity of a few random pieces of pop culture—despite the fact that relying on Girls as evidence of any phenomenon is pretty wild, considering it just premiered last night, and is produced by well-known feminist Judd Apatow, lulz—in order to implicitly claim that feminism is bullshit because all women REALLY want, deep down, is to be dominated by men.

And not only did Newsweek allow this garbage in its magazine; it put that shit right on the cover, with a reprehensible image.

I certainly hope that Newsweek will accept my pitch for next week's cover story, in which I use the ACTUAL popularity of The Hunger Games, Bridesmaids, Nurse Jackie, Parks & Recreation, and Downton Abbey to illustrate the fervent desire among USian women for feminist entertainment with strong female protagonists.

In which I will also elucidate the difference between consensual submission and nonconsensual subjugation.

[H/T to everyone in the multiverse, and thanks to each and every one of you.]

Open Wide...

Photos of the Day

Good morning! (Or whatever!) Let us begin the week by chasing away all the cases of all the Mondays with pictures of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, aka Hillz, partying in Cartagena, Colombia over the weekend while on a state trip!

image of Hillary Clinton dancing in a club with her arms in the air, grinning
Now is the time in Cartagena when we DANCE!

image of Hillary Clinton sitting in a club, drinking a beer, flanked by laughing women
Dancing works up a lady's thirst, amirite?

Y'all, I'm beginning to suspect that Hillary Clinton is the most interesting woman in the world.

Also! I cannot hear the words "Cartagena, Colombia" without thinking about Romancing the Stone, which I must have watched fully ONE MILLION TIMES once I was old enough that my parents would let me. ("THE Joan Wilder?!") And now I am picturing Hillary Clinton going down a mudslide, and Bill following after, landing with his face in between her sexy, sexy legs, and I am really hoping he inhales this time when they find that plane full of weed.

[H/T to Jessica. Images via Andrew Kaczynski, here and here.]

Open Wide...

Open Thread

A very tiny turtle balancing on the tip of someone's finger.

Hosted by an itty bitty turtle hatchling.

Open Wide...

Sunday Shuffle

The Moody Blues; The Story in Your Eyes


And you?

Open Wide...

Open Thread

image of a bunny taking a bath in a bucket

Hosted by a bunny taking a bath in a bucket. [Image via.]

This week's Open Threads have been hosted by cute animals doing cute things.

Open Wide...

Open Thread

image of a smiling lizard in a teacup, licking its nose

Hosted by a happy lizard taking a bath in a teacup. [Image via.]

Open Wide...

The Virtual Pub Is Open

image of a pub photoshopped to be named 'The Doghouse'
[Explanations: lol your fat. pathetic anger bread. hey your gay.]

TFIF, Shakers!

Belly up to the bar,
and name your poison!

Open Wide...

LOL FOREVER

[Content Note: Misogyny; violence.]

True Fact, according to Doug Phillips of the ironically-named Vision Forum: Because of feminism, "babies are killed en masse, women are treated like chattel, and men no longer take on their masculine role as defenders."

Sounds about right.

Open Wide...

Romney's Indifference to Dogs' Lives, Continued

[Content Note: Animal cruelty; violence.]

Not only does Mitt Romney think it's responsible dog ownership to travel with your dog in a crate strapped to the top of your car; he also thinks it's fine to party with asshole dog torturers:

On Monday, Romney will be the beneficiary of a fundraiser that is being hosted for him by Fred Malek. Who is Malek? He is the former President of Marriott Hotels and Northwest Airlines; former assistant to U.S. Presidents Richard Nixon and H.W. Bush; and former National Finance Committee Co-Chair for John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign.

Fred Malek is also part of a group of men who were arrested after killing and barbecuing a dog in a city park in Peoria, IL in 1959.
Don't worry, he assures us—he didn't actually kill the dog himself; he just watched.

image of Dudz and Zelly saying 'We Hate Mitt Romney!'

[H/T to Shaker Brunocerous.]

Open Wide...

Film Corner!

Behold, the theatrical trailer for the upcoming film Looper, for which there have been fully one million teaser trailers for the trailer (yes, the trailer—"Everyone get so excited for our trailer!") this week alone:


Video Description: A ticking vintage pocketwatch. Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who shall hereafter be known as Looperman, says in voiceover: "Time travel." He then says some other expository stuff that sets up the plot of the movie, which I will get to in a moment, but I just want to pause here, two words in, and note that this trailer begins with the words "time travel" over the image of a ticking pocketwatch, which means that two words in I already don't want to see this movie, because if trite, hackneyed, uninspired imagery was what I was looking for, I'd go back and read my middle-school poetry journals!

(Full Disclosure: I do not actually have middle-school poetry journals, because I was too busy writing a series of epic novels about a magical dolphin named Lyn. But if I DID have middle-school poetry journals, they would have been filled with trite, hackneyed, uninspired imagery FOR SURE.)

Anyway! It turns out that time travel hasn't been invented yet (Is time travel something that gets invented? I think it's something that gets discovered, but what do I know the other magical dolphin in my handwritten novels that this girl named Renee soooooo wanted to read and then never gave back to me fuck was named Ric), but "thirty years from now, it will have been." Invented. Not discovered.

Looperman stands on the edge of a cornfield—why are cornfields always used to symbolize the present day and/or simpler times? Are there no cornfields in the future? Even with all the corn subsidies? Come on. In thirty years high-fructose corn syrup will be ruling the world and Indiana will be Mecca—and points his shotgun at an empty blanket where suddenly a dude with a pillowcase on his head appears. Looperman shoots him. Damn, Looperman, that is COLD.

More exposition over images of Looperman being Mr. Cool Assassin. He is one of a bunch of "specialized assassins" called loopers who murder troublesome people for crime syndicates in the future. "So when criminal organizations in the future need someone gone, they zap 'em back to me, and I eliminate the target from the future." There seems to be a butterfly's fluttering wings causing a tsunami problem here, but suspension of disbelief blah blah.

Plus: This is a movie whose trailer thinks saying "time travel" over the image of a gold gentleman's pocketwatch in the year of our lord Jesus Jones two thousand and twelve is still a good idea, so it's probably too much to ask of it to not be totally fucking stupid.

(Please Note: A movie being totally fucking stupid does not mean I won't see it.)

Loopers make a lot of money. They live the good life. Cars, ladies, and other fine possessions. "The only rule is: Never let your target escape." Looperman is back at the death mat near the cornfield. Uh-oh. The target's got green eyes! Looperman's got green eyes! GREEN EYES GREEN EYES GREEN EYES! WHAT COULD IT MEAN?! "Even if the target…is you." Bazinga! HOLY SHIT!!! I NEVER SAW IT COMING!!!

(I saw it coming.)

Bruce Willis is Old Looperman. He's got some gold bars blocking the shot! DAYUM! Now's the REAL ACTION, Looperheads! Blasts! Screaming! Young Looperman's in trouble now! Running! Shooting! Crashing out a window! Techno music! Montagery! A lady!

Cut to a close-up of Jeff Daniels with a large beard looking stoned and saying, for realz, "This time travel crap just fries your brain like an egg." HA HA YUP! "This is time travel. This is your brain on time travel. Any questions?" YES I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS LIKE WHO WROTE THIS MOVIE—1987?!

Text Onscreen, with appropriate character-montagery: BRUCE WILLIS. JOSEPH GORDON-LEVITT. EMILY BLUNT. Oh, hi, Emily Blunt! I definitely want to see your movie!

LOOPER. Coming to a theater near you soon.

screen cap of pocketwatch from trailer

Open Wide...

2FA, #13

Liss: Know what movie I can't WAIT to see? Deeky: Which one? Liss: The one with that white guy, and the other white guy, and two other white guys, and the non-white guy, and the token lady. Deeky: Oh, totes. Me too. Looks GREAT.

(Which movie am I talking about? ALL OF THEM.)

Open Wide...